Wednesday. October 13th. VI.

Attended Prayers and recitation this morning, without any thing uncommon happening.
After breakfast, I attended Mr. Everett’s Lecture as usual. He closed the controversy
with some remarks on the last points of it. The traditions concerning Solon at that
age certainly favour Wolf’s hypothesis. They are not however directly inconsistent
with the common opinion concerning the unity and authenticity of Homer. It is not
at all surprising that Homer should have come down in detached portions when we consider
the want of materials for the preservation of works and the practice of recitation
easily accounts for the scattered state of the poems. Subsequent authors moreover,
when Libraries were made for the express purpose of preserving entire books, have
come down to us in a similar way. The different parts of the Testament even were collected
at different places.

Another strong argument against Wolf’s theory is that no such thing has been mentioned
by any ancient author whatsoever. Had it been a fact that these poems were formed
by many, it would have been { 384 } recollected for many ages and certainly a sufficient number of years does not exist
between Solon and the last of these poetical composers to admit of a total oblivion
or account for the want of any tradition of such compilation. We must observe also
that this is a question not of the fabrication of the poems at a later date, as is
the case with Ossian, but merely of the writing of the poems of which an author would
have been proud to declare himself the composer. Perrault, to be sure, regards the
contest of the seven cities as some argument, but this is merely an inference, and
it is evident that no single, abstract conception of the unity of Homer could have
been formed, had many authors been known to exist and had the poems been gradually
perfected according to the present argument. Finally it is worthy of remark that Wolf
and his followers are not at all confident in their own assertions. These, if brought
to a strict test, amount to no more than that the present form of the Iliad and Odyssey,
the division into books, the insertion of some of the episodes with scattered passages
and many single lines, are to be ascribed to the rhapsodists and grammarians. That
they were in a simple and shorter form and that there is no absolute historical certainty
about the person of Homer.

Men when in contest are very apt to go further than they intend and in this something
may have escaped from some of the advocates of the theory which the [other] party do not allow. Indeed by a quotation from Wolf’s own preface in the synopsis,1 we can see that his statements go no farther. Such are the merits of the most important
question in Greek literature. Those who incline to support Wolf in his theory have
a great argument and much plausibility on their side. The popular doctrine rests on
the consent of ages. His [Everett’s] qualified statement of the theory is one which he thinks will unite most probabilities,
as by it we can believe in one sublime poet for the author, whilst we do not contradict
the known laws of human and intellectual progress.

He then went on to the life of Homer and mentioned the accounts of him which have
been written. One [is] ascribed to Herodotus; ancient authors mention his having written such a life but
this is not probably it. It is quoted by no ancient author. There is a life of Homer ascribed to Plutarch which is quoted
by Aulus Gellius. The work does not however correspond with these citations. One author
has supposed Dionysius [of] Halicarnassus to be the author. There are three short lives in Greek prefixed to
a work of Allatius de Patria Homeri of which two are anonymous. The first is by Proclus.
But the most convenient works on his life are those of Madame Dacier and Pope prefixed
to { 385 } their translations of the poems and that of Blackwall. We can only make inferences
and deductions from the entire want of certain knowledge, and his omitting to mention
himself in his poems, a custom which prevailed among the ancients but the reverse
of which now obtains. We suppose him a native of Ionia from his geography and his
hymn to Apollo which however is not correct ground. As to the time, a variety of opinion
has been held. He has been placed between the sixth and tenth centuries before the
Christian era. His description is minute of the siege of Troy but he says he was not
near the time. Some have placed him before the return of the Heracleids (Mitford and
Haller) but the Ionians did not emigrate until two generations after that.2 He has been fixed with most probability 900 years before Christ, 130 after the return
of the Heracleids and 270 after the Trojan war. Herodotus agrees with this by placing
him four hundred years before himself.

Lecture over, I returned home and sat myself down according to my usual way to write
out my Lectures. I did not read over the Astronomy so that I did not know any thing
about the recitation. It was upon the Moon today. After recitation I returned home
and employed myself in a similar way. The afternoon was taken up in studying the lesson
in Paley as I was confident that I should be called upon which was the case.

After Prayers we had a good Rifle drill and then attended a Lecture of Mr. Ticknors.
I took very full notes of a very beautiful lecture but I shall be compelled to condense
them very much. Pascal, he said, had given the direction and tone to French eloquence
and had shown what it was capable of in the pulpit. Bossuet arose and carried it to
it’s height. He was born in Burgundy in 1627, his education was private. He retired
to Metz, was made a canon and there studied the councils, the scriptures and the fathers
to prepare for those attacks upon the reformers which he commenced in 1655. The reputation
which he thus acquired soon called him to Paris and in his sermons he so pleased the
two Queens of England and of France that in 1661 he was called to the court, before
which he delivered discourses that year and the lent of the year following. In 1669
he was made a Bishop and still remained about the Court. The next year he was appointed
preceptor to the Dauphin and laid out a plan for his education in which all the learned
men were to contribute. It was for him that he wrote an abridgment of history, an
account of the reign of Louis 14th and a system of religious classics. It was for
him also that he wrote the excellent Essay on universal history. In 1681 he was promoted
to the { 386 } more valuable bishopric of Meaux. The elector of Hanover had proposed a meeting between
him and a protestant which was agreed to but it had the same result with all affairs
of this sort, no success. He then attacked the sect of the Quietists of whom more
will be said hereafter; he was always ambitious, great and successful. He enjoyed
the office of counsellor to the king which he held until his death which happened
in 1704, he being 77 years old. He wrote above 100 works which fill twenty quarto
volumes. Many of these are in Latin and a larger part controversial. He was a Doctor
at 25 and dedicated a thesis to the Condé by which he gained his favour. We find [him] at the hotel de Rambouillet in Paris leading the wits of the day. He did not come
forward in his strength however until he was forty three years old when he immediately
became the head of the clergy, which he kept until he was 73. Though for the last
ten years of his life he did nothing half equalling his old effort, he made important
additions to his universal history. His works were almost all written to increase
his power and do not for the most part come within our jurisdiction.

His Doctrine he published in 1671 as an answer to the Protestants and it may be considered
the best answer which has ever been given to the reformation. The argument is logical,
acute, the proportion in style is elegant and it’s compactness is perfection to it.
Bonaparte, if such an authority is to be quoted on such a subject, said that but for
this treatise he should have been a Protestant. His Discours sur l’histoire universel
was published in 1681. It is more of a discourse indeed than an item of events, but
in his sermons we find most splendid specimens of French eloquence, although not the
first in the language. He here yielded the palm to Bourdaloue3 and with more effect as it was done with grace. His funeral orations however were
the very greatest things which were ever delivered. He then analysed the species of
writing and went on with considerable eloquence to speak of the contrast between the
men and the [ . . . ] he has given. It is a duty but little proper to a Christian minister. This was certainly
a beautiful specimen. He was undoubtedly the father of the Gallican church whose rights
he ably defended. He was inferior to but few of his rivals; indeed Bourdaloue excelled
him as they lived in the habit of writing touching Sermons.4 Not that Bossuet might not have succeeded, but that he would not. Of his great rival
Bourdaloue whom Mr. Ticknor also mentioned, I cannot say any thing today but shall
continue writing notes out whenever I have the leisure.

After Lecture, Chapman and one or two more of us went to Mr. Willard’s and spent a
considerable quantity of time. I staid quite pleasantly and talked with him; afterwards,
returned home and wrote { 387 } out my notes, a long labour when I felt very much more like sleeping. I am anxious
for the time to come when I finish a drudgery of slaves.